Key result
The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis ICD lead had significantly decreased survival compared with the Quattro lead (89.3% vs 98.9% at 30 months), with patients under 50 at increased risk of fracture.
Why the study?
Does the Fidelis ICD lead have a higher fracture rate compared to the Quattro lead, and what are the risk factors for fracture?
Population
1,314 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads
Comparison
Medtronic Sprint Fidelis ICD lead vs Quattro ICD lead
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
up to 30 months
Authors
Loading...
Fidelis leads may warrant closer monitoring in patients under 50; leaves open long-term comparative durability versus modern leads.
Observational (n=1,314)
Does the Fidelis ICD lead have a higher fracture rate compared to the Quattro lead, and what are the risk factors for fracture?
Absolute Event Rate: 89.3% vs 98.9%
Morrison et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads (n=1,314). Medtronic Sprint Fidelis ICD lead vs. Quattro ICD lead was evaluated on Lead survival at 30 months. The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis ICD lead had significantly decreased survival compared with the Quattro lead (89.3% vs 98.9% at 30 months), with patients under 50 at increased risk of fracture.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: